ArticleJournal of clinical imaging science2016
Dedicated Three-dimensional Breast Computed Tomography: Lesion Characteristic Perception by Radiologists.
Article in Journal of clinical imaging science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Zero-Shot Domain Adaptation of 2D Mammography Lesion Detection Model for 3D Breast CT Malignancy Detection.Cancers · 2026Article
- Dedicated breast CT: state of the art-Part I. Historical evolution and technical aspects.European radiology · 2022Review
- Applications of Computational Methods in Biomedical Breast Cancer Imaging Diagnostics: A Review.Journal of imaging · 2020Review
- Ultrasound Imaging Technologies for Breast Cancer Detection and Management: A Review.Ultrasound in medicine & biology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess radiologist confidence in the characterization of suspicious breast lesions with a dedicated three-dimensional breast computed tomography (DBCT) system in comparison to diagnostic two-dimensional digital mammography (dxDM). MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty women were recruited who were to undergo a breast biopsy for a Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 or 5 lesion evaluated with dxDM in this Institutional Review Board-approved study. The enrolled subjects underwent imaging of the breast(s) of concern using DBCT. Seven radiologists reviewed the cases. Each reader compared DBCT to the dxDM and was asked to specify the lesion type and BI-RADS score for each lesion and modality. They also compared lesion characteristics: Shape for masses or morphology for calcifications; and margins for masses or distribution for calcifications between the modalities using confidence scores (0-100).
resultsTwenty-four biopsied lesions were included in this study: 17 (70.8%) masses and 7 (29.2%) calcifications. Eight (33.3%) lesions were malignant, and 16 (66.7%) were benign. Across all lesions, there was no significant difference in the margin/distribution (Δ = -0.99, P = 0.84) and shape/morphology (Δ = -0.10, P = 0.98) visualization confidence scores of DBCT in relation to dxDM. However, analysis by lesion type showed a statistically significant increase in reader shape (Δ =11.34, P = 0.013) and margin (Δ =9.93, P = 0.023) visualization confidence with DBCT versus dxDM for masses and significant decrease in reader morphology (Δ = -29.95, P = 0.001) and distribution (Δ = -28.62, P = 0.002) visualization confidence for calcifications.
conclusionReader confidence in the characterization of suspicious masses is significantly improved with DBCT, but reduced for calcifications. Further study is needed to determine whether this technology can be used for breast cancer screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.